Stop doing that. Stop taking sides by name, and stop humoring an uninformed opinion of science and the philosophy of science.
You either understand the philosophy of science or you don't. N doesn't.
While I'm certainly not going to disagree that Navigator doesn't appear to understand a number of things completely, as has been demonstrated in previous discussions, and employs questionable logic somewhat frequently, Navigator is technically correct about a couple things. Science really simply doesn't deal with hypotheses that are inherently untestable and unfalsifiable. It has no means to do so. As a general matter, those hypotheses can be dismissed from serious consideration, given that there's simply no good reason to rule them in as a viable explanations in the first place, certainly.
He's trying to convince us that he does. That's fair play. He gets to make that move. That's what his tl;dr orations are all about.
But it's not working. He doesn't get science. If you think he does, you don't get it either.
I have no problem at all with agreeing with a person where they are correct and disagreeing with them where they aren't. Either way, I do find this entire tangent to be very much OT for this thread, which is why I've been holding back. Frankly, the only reason why I've stepped in is in a tiny hope to mediate a little bit and bring it back from where general insults are being slung around, though I, unfortunately, have little expectation of success in that.
Either way, to poke at a few things in no particular order...
Until there's evidence of a so-called "spiritual" parallel to matter/energy, I have to go on the assumption that creation ex nihilo is not possible.
Even if there was evidence of a so-called "spiritual" parallel, that wouldn't solve the issues in question at all, given that the concepts that tend to be invoked aren't remotely limited to physical "things." All it might do would be to push the question back a little, in the turtles all the way down sense.
If something cannot be defined, then it cannot potentially exist
You missed a word or two. "If something cannot even potentially be defined" would work far better, even if it would still be somewhat conceptually questionable. As part of learning and the growth of language, we tend to become able to define more and more things. That something simply cannot be defined because because of the limitations of language or understanding at some point in no way would affect whether something could potentially exist.
If something can be defined (even things which are not seen to exist) then potentially they can exist.
No. Things can very certainly be defined and described that cannot even potentially exist.
The invisible pile of gold in my backyard which gentlehorse defines might exist, doesn't exist because gold is by nature, not invisible. The definition cancels out its existence.
Invisible is frequently used and defined in a somewhat lesser way, namely, "hidden from view," which is far from impossible and not at all contradictory to gold's nature. Thus, the definition actually doesn't cancel out it's existence for the reason you argued.
On what basis do you assume the possibility of something existing “outside the physical universe”? What is it and what evidence do you have for it possibly existing?
I would assume the same way that one assumes the possibility of pretty much anything at all. The lack of impossibility given the knowledge at one's disposal. There's a rather large gulf between possible, though, and reasonable to accept as the case, regardless, which is likely the division that you'd be better served by focusing upon. Given the validity of the bases of solipsism, the bar for "possible" is incredibly low. Given the demonstrated usefulness of methodological naturalism among other things, the bar for reasonable to accept tends to be much, much higher.
Perhaps one could argue that they “potentially exist” (your argument) but the probability that they do exist is low to the point of being irrelevant.
If the only question at hand is whether it's possible or not, probability is irrelevant. Probability certainly is relevant for how reasonable it would be to accept something, though.
Yes, but that is a poor definition of existence. It is a good definition of a physical phenomena, or a physical object.
*snip*
You asked for a "scientific" definition of existence. I'd suggest limiting your criticisms to criticisms that would be relevant to such, really. None of your presented criticisms looked like they were particularly relevant to that, specifically, given that by invoking "scientific," you made the points you raised moot, at best.
Quite, for there to be nothing, that would mean nothing in time or space ever, including time and space itself, or anything else we are not currently aware of, never existed or ever would exist.
So the fact that something exists means there is no nothing anywhere. Unless one is prepared to question the validity of logic in these affairs.
There is a logical paradox here, at the heart of existence.
Actually... no. Conceptually, there certainly could be absolute nothingness. It couldn't really be said to exist, because of what it actually is, but, the salient point with regards to it is generally that something cannot come from it, not that it couldn't be the case. All it takes is some form of viable separation from something that does exist.
When one goes into quantum physics, there likely are viable arguments against absolute nothingness, certainly, but you, frankly, weren't dealing with science at all with your statement.
Aha! Philosophy got there first. Something exists, therefore nothing does not exist, even if time and space extend into infinity etc. etc....
Actually, again, it's just that something exists, therefore, there was always something, not that "therefore nothing does not exist." I would think that this would be a rather simple point to understand.
